- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24160 WP No. 5839 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 5839 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI GURU MARULASIDDESHWARA TRADERS, RMC YARD, TIPTUR - 572 201, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR M.S. SWAMY. (COPRA EXPORTERS BUSINESS) A UNREG. FIRM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHRUTHI S.P., ADVOCATE) AND: AXIS BANK LTD, OFFICE AT PLOT-41, SESHADRI ROAD, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560009. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DTD 21.01.2025 (ANNX-C) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24160 WP No. 5839 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned possession notice at Annexure - C. The various contentions have been raised in the writ petition including that non payment was due to reasons beyond the petitioner’s control. 2. This Court by interim order dated 28.04.2025, had passed an order restraining the respondent from taking possession subject to conditions imposed in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 28.04.2025. Admittedly, petitioner has not complied with the conditions imposed in the interim order dated 28.04.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as against the possession notice, petitioner if aggrieved; is to go before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. 4. Heard both the sides. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24160 WP No. 5839 of 2025 5. In light of the contentions raised it is relevant to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appropriate remedy would be to relegate the petitioner to seek for substantive remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are as follows: "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24160 WP No. 5839 of 2025 person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24160 WP No. 5839 of 2025 contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the Sarfaesi Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." 6. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24160 WP No. 5839 of 2025 8. Needless to state that while considering the aspect of limitation, in the event the proceedings are instituted before the DRT, time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately. 9. All the contentions of the petitioner are kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10